Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Yet, one side constantly cuts budgets which impacts minorities more and one side provides things which help their lives. The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc. The inner cities thus have a much higher % of the poor and the non profits, no/low paying taxes of those entities which provide those services like hospitals.
|
Oh, because spending money like we do in CT, has helped these people?
Spending more money is only beneficial, if it's spent on things that actually help people. Making more of them choose single parenthood, hasn't been an overly productive use of public money from their perspective. Crippling them, by making them addicted to welfare, hasn't been an overly productive use of money. Getting more of them to be self sufficient, giving them skills (not cash) they can use to get ahead, makes sense to me. I'll help pay for it. I'll happily pay for free day care so teenage parents can learn a trade or go back to school. I'm less thrilled about sending them cash for the rest of their lives so they can sit around.
"The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc"
And because they don't have the skills they need to acquire the wealth necessary to live in a suburb.
If huge numbers of poor people got off welfare and became self sufficient, they'd be less likely to vote democrat. You're telling me, that doesn't factor into democrat policy? That democrats don't have a self serving reason to keep them poor?
Democrats offer more freebies to poor people than republicans, I would never deny that. I see it as a good thing for the GOP.
Threaded Mode